553471 HFSXXX10.
1177/0018720814553471Human FactorsApplication of Motivation Theory to HF/E
On the Application of Motivation Theory to
Human Factors/Ergonomics: Motivational Design
Principles for Human–Technology Interaction
James L. Szalma, University of Central Florida, Orlando
Objective: Motivation is a driving force in human–
technology interaction. This paper represents an effort
to (a) describe a theoretical model of motivation in
human technology interaction, (b) provide design
principles and guidelines based on this theory, and (c)
describe a sequence of steps for the evaluation of moti-
vational factors in human–technology interaction.
Background: Motivation theory has been relatively
neglected in human factors/ergonomics (HF/E). In both
research and practice, the (implicit) assumption has been
that the operator is already motivated or that motiva-
tion is an organizational concern and beyond the purview
of HF/E. However, technology can induce task-related
boredom (e.g., automation) that can be stressful and also
increase system vulnerability to performance failures.
Method: A theoretical model of motivation in
human–technology interaction is proposed, based on
extension of the self-determination theory of motiva-
tion to HF/E. This model provides the basis for both
future research and for development of practical rec-
ommendations for design.
Results: General principles and guidelines for moti-
vational design are described as well as a sequence of
steps for the design process.
Conclusion: Human motivation is an important
concern for HF/E research and practice. Procedures
in the design of both simple and complex technologies
can, and should, include the evaluation of motivational
characteristics of the task, interface, or system. In addi-
tion, researchers should investigate these factors in
specific human–technology domains.
Application: The theory, principles, and guidelines
described here can be incorporated into existing tech-
niques for task analysis and for interface and system
design.
Keywords: motivation and technology, motivation and
human factors/ergonomics, hedonomics, eudaimonic
design, self-determination theory, work motivation
Address correspondence to James L. Szalma, Performance
Research Laboratory, Psychology Department, University
of Central Florida, PO Box 161390, Orlando, FL 32816-
1390, USA; e-mail: James.Szalma@ucf.edu.
HUMAN FACTORS
Vol. 56, No. 8, December 2014, pp. 1453­–1471
DOI: 10.1177/0018720814553471
Copyright © 2014, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Introduction
Human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) theo-
ries and research have mostly emphasized sen-
sory/perceptual, cognitive, and psychomotor pro-
cesses (Proctor & Van Zandt, 2008; Sanders
& McCormick, 1993; Wickens, Lee, Liu, &
Gordon-Becker, 2003), although there has been
some work on how emotion and personality
affect human–technology interaction (e.g., Han-
cock, Pepe, & Murphy, 2005; Helander & Tham,
2003; Szalma, 2008, 2009). With respect to emo-
tion, authors of much of this work have been
concerned either with the influence of stress on
performance (e.g., Broadbent, 1971) and human–
machine interaction (Hancock & Szalma, 2008)
or with the design of interfaces and tasks to be
emotionally satisfying or even pleasurable (e.g.,
Hancock et al., 2005; Helander & Tham, 2003;
Jordan, 2000; McDonagh, Hekkert, Van Erp, &
Gyi, 2004; Norman, 2004).
Motivation Psychology and HF/E
Motivation theory has been mostly neglected
in HF/E theory and research (for a brief discus-
sion, see Szalma, 2009). The (implicit) assump-
tion has been that the operator or user is already
motivated or that lack of motivation can be
ameliorated by application of organizational
science—that motivation is outside the purview of
HF/E. However, it is now clear that technology
itself can induce or exacerbate boredom (Cooke,
Cummings, Hancock, Marras, & Warm, 2010;
Cummings, Mastracchio, Thornburg, & Mkrt-
chyan, 2013; Hancock, 2013) and stress (e.g.,
Szalma, Hancock, & Hancock, 2012), which
can place performance at risk (Hancock &
Szalma, 2008). In fact, boredom and disengage-
ment can be considered adaptive responses of
individuals to poorly designed environments
(Hancock, 2013), and the prevalence of bore-
dom in technology use underscores the need for
consideration of motivation theory in HF/E. As
1454 December 2014 - Human Factors
recently noted by Hancock (2013), lack of moti-
vation in many contexts results from failures not
of the person but in the design of the task itself.
Fortunately, insights from motivation psychol-
ogy developed over the previous half century
can potentially address these issues in the design
of technology.
Although motivation has been recognized to be
an important factor in technology design (e.g.,
Leventhal & Barnes, 2008; Nielson, 1993; Olphert
& Damodaran, 2004; Shackel, 1986), the theoreti-
cal constructs related to motivation have been
phrased in poorly defined and nontheoretical
terms. There have been exceptions, such as
research on flow experience associated with tech-
nology (e.g., Montgomery, Sharafi, & Hedman,
2004; Pace, 2004; Pilke, 2004), technology accep-
tance (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw,
1989, 1992; Venkatesh, 2000), and most generally,
work motivation (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard,
2008). In addition, there has been substantial
research on the influence of incentives and arousal
on performance as well as work on the cognitive
processes associated with motivation (e.g., expec-
tancy, goal value; for a review, see Matthews,
Davies, Westerman, & Stammers, 2000). How-
ever, most of these exceptions either are domain
specific (e.g., human–computer interaction; video
games) or are focused on the broader context in
which a task is performed (e.g., work settings; the
relationships among motivation, stress, and per-
formance) rather than on the motivational effects
of the technology itself.
To date, there are no broadly applicable
design principles for human–technology inter-
action based on psychological theories of moti-
vation, and most practical recommendations for
enhancing motivation that do exist are not well
grounded in psychological theory, which can
limit the effectiveness of their applicability. For
instance, Thompson (2004) discussed motiva-
tion “theory” but cited no scholarly work (except
for Maslow, 1943) to identify theories or to
apply them, remarking only that there is no “sin-
gle overriding theory which applies to all situa-
tions” (p. 333). Although it is true that multiple
theories exist, it is not the case that there are no
general theories of motivation applicable to
human–technology interaction. There are a few
theories that are sufficiently broad in scope to be
useful for developing general HF/E principles
for motivational design.
It is proposed here that a set of general prin-
ciples for motivational design be developed for
broad application in a manner analogous to that
for principles of display and control design, that
is, by deriving principles from psychological
theory. One can imagine that many of the prin-
ciples of display design would have been less
powerful if they had not been derived from and
based on theories of sensation, perception, and
cognition. Although it is likely that many practi-
tioners already consider user motivation in their
design work, to date, these considerations have
not been formalized in HF/E theory and research.
Hence, the present work is an effort to (a)
describe a theoretical model of motivation in
human technology interaction based on self-
determination theory (SD-theory; Deci & Ryan,
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000), (b) provide general
design principles and guidelines based on this
theory, and (c) describe a sequence of steps for
the evaluation of motivational factors in human–
technology interaction. These steps for applica-
tion parallel those that have been previously
described for personality and individual differ-
ences (Szalma, 2009).
Why Motivation?
Motivation has been conceptualized as a
continuous stream of behavior comprising three
components: (a) direction (goals), (b) energy
(allocated to the pursuit of those goals), and
(c) persistence (versus a change) in goal pur-
suit (Atkinson & Birch, 1978; Petri & Govern,
2013). It is also well established that the struc-
ture of environments influences motivational
states (Petri & Govern, 2013; Reeve, 2005).
For instance, factors related to feedback or
rewards, to autonomy, and to self-efficacy have
been implicated in motivational responses to
environmental conditions (e.g., Bandura, 1997;
Deci & Ryan, 1985). To the extent that these
factors are generally important in determining
human behavior, they must also influence how
humans respond to technology. That is, technol-
ogy, as a component of the environment, affects
goals, efficacy beliefs, and the energization of
behavior. However, technology is an aspect of
the environment that humans themselves create.
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1455
The utility for including motivation theory into
HF/E design is apparent from consideration of
multiple research literatures, including motivation
theory itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,
2000), technology acceptance (Venkatesh, 2000),
pleasurable or hedonomic design (Hancock et al.,
2005; Jordan, 1998, 2000; McLaughlin, Gandy,
Allaire, & Whitlock, 2012), boredom and monot-
ony (Davies, Shackleton, & Parasuraman, 1983;
Fisher, 1993; Scerbo, 1998; Smith, 1981), and
work motivation (Kanfer et al., 2008; Luczak,
Kabel, & Licht, 2012). Research from these diverse
areas, considered from the HF/E perspective, con-
verges on the clear conclusion that consideration of
the motivational effects of technology (or of any
aspects of the environment) is crucial to the attain-
ment of successful outcomes (e.g., usability, per-
formance, mitigation of workload and stress).
The rationale for incorporating motivation the-
ory into HF/E research and practice derives from
concerns that are familiar to the HF/E community.
These issues are (a) the degree to which an inter-
face supports the person in attaining his or her
immediate (and in some cases, long-term) goals
and (b) the meaning of the immediate activity and
the general contextualized activity for the user.
This second issue addresses the kinds of goals pur-
sued as well as why a person pursues them. From
this perspective, the central question for design is
how to structure technology to support motivated
behavior that facilitates both performance and the
well-being of the users (i.e., to enable effective
performance without inducing stress and to facili-
tate, when possible, the experience of a pleasant
interaction or activity).
Consideration of motivation theory addresses
the issue of how goals (and the contexts in which
they are pursued) should be structured, which in
turn will drive how the technology is designed to
support their attainment. Note that considerations
of system and user goals are not new to HF/E.
The centrality of motivation is reflected in one of
the first and most central questions in technology
design: “What is the goal for the system?” How-
ever, the motivational state of the user has not
been formally or systematically integrated into
HF/E theory, research, or practice.
In essence, motivation is important for
human–technology interaction because such cir-
cumstances are a subset of human experience
and because motivational processes energize
and direct human activity. Motivation is a cen-
tral driving force in the design and creation of
tools: Humans do not create artifacts without a
purpose, and humans use tools for activities that
are meaningful to them (Hancock, 2009). Hence,
motivation theory should inform the design of
these tools in order to maximize the benefits to
the users.
It is useful to consider the consequences of
not incorporating motivation theory into design
principles. One cannot prove a negative; that is,
one cannot establish that a system failure that
has occurred would not have occurred if opera-
tor motivation had been considered. However,
variables investigated in motivation research
(e.g., interest; Sansone & Smith, 2000; Sansone,
Thoman, & Smith, 2010; boredom and its miti-
gation, Fisher, 1993) are also relevant to HF/E
domains, for example, prolonged driving, auto-
mation, and autonomous systems. It is not the
case that if the motivational state of the user is
ignored during the design process, the technol-
ogy or system will fail with certainty or even
with a high probability. Humans and the systems
they use are often resilient; the former are adap-
tive to suboptimal circumstances, and the latter
are often designed to be error tolerant. Indeed,
Olphert and Damodaran (2004) noted that the
relative lack of attention to “nonfunctional” (i.e.,
affective) requirements by designers and users
alike may be attributed to the fact that people are
not accustomed to systems in the workplace that
are rewarding and fulfilling to use. However,
even tolerant and resilient systems have limits in
stability, and the strain of stress, workload, and
fatigue can place humans and the systems they
operate into states of adaptive instability and
increased risk of failure (Hancock & Warm,
1989; Hockey, 1997). Hence, to ignore operator
motivation is to neglect an important but vulner-
able aspect of human–technology interaction,
which may increase the risk of performance
impairment that may result in adverse effects on
the well-being of the users.
As a practical illustration, consider tasks in
which there are well-documented effects of
boredom, fatigue, and stress. The importance of
motivation is well established for performance
in work environments in general (Kanfer et al.,
1456 December 2014 - Human Factors
2008; Luczak et al., 2012), but worker motiva-
tion is particularly fragile for monotonous tasks
or jobs (Davies et al., 1983; Fisher, 1993). These
include automation, long-distance driving, mon-
itoring, and monotonous, repetitive tasks. For
automation in particular, the motivational issue
associated with supervisory control (i.e., the
problem of boredom) has been recently identi-
fied as a crucial concern (Cooke et al., 2010;
Cummings et al., 2013). In all these contexts, the
operators are generally motivated to engage in
the task, and they realize that their safety depends
on successful task performance. Yet they are
bored, tired, and stressed and are thus vulnerable
to performance failure. Furthermore, these
effects are likely iatrogenic, that is, induced by
the design of the technology itself (Hancock,
2013).
These circumstances can be potentially miti-
gated by consideration of the relation of the
operator to the goal, that is, the motivational
relationship of the person to the task goal. Bore-
dom, fatigue, and stress can be reduced by
designing task goals to be well aligned to impor-
tant personal goals of the individual and by pro-
viding the person with opportunities for effec-
tive, autonomous performance of the task. Con-
sideration of operator motivation will facilitate
attainment of the design goals of “satisfaction”
(International Organization for Standardization
[ISO], 1998), “pleasing experience” (Nielson,
1993), and “task match” (Eason, 1984) associ-
ated with models of usability.
Prior Applications of Motivation
and Emotion to Human–Technology
Interaction
Emotion and usability. Although motivation
has not been adequately addressed in usability
research, the importance of consideration of emo-
tion in design is well known (e.g., Jordan, 1998,
2000; McDonagh et al., 2004; Norman, 2004).
For instance, Jordan (2000) noted that pleasure in
using a product requires more than (functional)
usability but also the effects the product has on
emotional response. Functionality is crucial for
product effectiveness and a necessary condition
for pleasurable interaction (Hancock et al., 2005),
but nonfunctional requirements, such as affective
experience, may be just as important (Olphert
& Damodaran, 2004). This concept is relevant to
motivation because emotions are, in part, a
response to goal status (Lazarus, 1991). That is,
emotional responses to technology or to perform-
ing a task are a result of cognitive appraisals
regarding current system state relative to a goal
state.
As noted previously, individuals use technol-
ogy for goal-directed activity (Hancock, 2009).
Well-designed technology supports attainment
of these goals and does so in a manner that
requires the least amount of energy. In essence,
this is the meaning of the term usability, which
may be defined in terms of achieving “specified
goals” in an “efficient and satisfying manner”
(ISO, 1998; Leventhal & Barnes, 2008). Fur-
thermore, psychological processes related to
nonfunctional requirements are included in for-
mal treatments of usability. For instance, models
of usability identify user attitudes (Shackel,
1986), whether a user experiences an interface
as subjectively pleasing (Nielsen, 1993), or
whether the user is motivated to use the technol-
ogy (Eason, 1984). Note that with respect to the
latter model, motivation was conceptualized as a
goal-directed construct, but the model did not
address the factors that drive intrinsic versus
extrinsic motivation or the importance of per-
sonal autonomy in goal selection and pursuit.
In general, usability models have not included
a description of the motivational structures or
processes underlying user intentions and behav-
ior. Authors of texts on usability (e.g., Leventhal
& Barnes, 2008) mention the importance of
motivation, but they do not analyze it further
than to note that motivated users will have more
successful and/or pleasant interactions with the
interface. This approach neglects analysis of the
relation of the person to the goal, for example,
the importance of both adopting and attaining
the goal for the person and his or her well-being.
Following traditional information-processing
perspectives, HF/E seems to treat all goals as
occurring on a single continuum of motivational
intensity and to assume that goals differ only in
quantity and not in kind. However, there is sub-
stantial evidence that the kind of goal pursued
affects the form of motivation as well as its
intensity (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,
2000).
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1457
Motivation and technology acceptance. One
of the most well-known applications of motiva-
tion research to technology use is the technology
acceptance model (TAM). TAM was developed
from research on user acceptance of computer
technology (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989,
1992). According to this model, technology use
is directly determined by behavioral intention to
use it, and this intention is determined by atti-
tudes of the user toward the technology. Specifi-
cally, intention is determined by the perceived
usefulness of the technology (i.e., the utility or
instrumentality of the technology for goal attain-
ment) and perceived ease of use (i.e., the usabil-
ity of the technology). Research has established
that perceived usefulness is influenced by per-
ceived ease of use and that the latter is determined
by multiple factors that include self-efficacy, per-
ception of control, computer anxiety, computer
playfulness, enjoyment, and “objective usabil-
ity” (i.e., the actual level of effort required to use
the technology to complete a specific task; Ven-
katesh, 2000).
The evidence generally supports the validity
of TAM (for meta-analytic reviews, see King &
He, 2006; Schepers & Wetzels, 2007), including
its application to automation (Ghazizadeh, Lee,
& Boyle, 2012), but the model does not explain
how the relational meaning of the interaction
affects user performance or well-being. TAM
has been linked to a distinction between extrin-
sic and intrinsic motivation (Davis et al., 1992;
Venkatesh, 2000), but the model does not
account for different forms of extrinsic motiva-
tion that occur as a function of different levels of
psychological need satisfaction (Ryan & Deci,
2000), nor does it account for the importance of
the degree of internalization of goals (Sheldon &
Kasser, 1995). These structures and processes
determine the form and the magnitude of moti-
vation. In addition, TAM specifies facilitating
conditions for higher perceived ease of use (i.e.,
providing support for self-efficacy and control,
reducing anxiety, and increasing the playfulness
of the system; Venkatesh, 2000), but it does not
address the process by which this facilitation
occurs.
In essence, TAM does not completely describe
the motivational structures and processes that
determine the “why” of technology acceptance.
Work on TAM does establish, however, that
attention to factors that influence user motivation
can have positive outcomes, that is, user accep-
tance of technology (e.g., the design of a medica-
tion management device; Chiou et al., 2014).
Further, the model provides validated instru-
ments for the measurement of perceived ease of
use and perceived usefulness (Davies et al.,
1992; Venkatesh, 2000), which may facilitate
applications of motivational design principles.
In a subsequent section of this paper, it is
argued that each of the facilitating conditions
identified in TAM can be supported by creating
structures that strengthen the experience of sat-
isfaction of basic psychological needs. From this
perspective, the factors identified in TAM are
elements of a larger set of conditions that sup-
port psychological need satisfaction and thereby
facilitate intrinsic and internalized extrinsic
motivation.
Choice of Theory: Shifting the
Emphasis From Goals to Meaning
There are many theoretical perspectives that
have contributed to our collective understanding
of motivation by identifying cognitive processes
that influence behavior, including expectancy
and value (Vroom, 1964), self-efficacy (Ban-
dura, 1997), and goal setting (Latham & Locke,
2007; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002, 2006).
Theories that emphasize goal setting (Locke &
Latham, 1990) or cybernetic control of behavior
(Carver & Scheier, 1998) are relevant because
these concepts are also used widely in HF/E.
Although these particular theories may therefore
be useful for describing the microstructure of
dynamic fluctuations in motivational state in
real time, they are not sufficient to address the
issues of purpose that drive human–technology
interaction, that is, the meaning of the interac-
tion for the human user (cf. Hancock, 2009,
2013).
For instance, goal-setting theory has been
applied across multiple contexts (Latham &
Locke, 2007; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002,
2006), and it has potential for application to
evaluation of the effect of task goals on human–
technology interaction. Goals are obviously an
important component of efforts to design tech-
nology to support user activities, but there are
1458 December 2014 - Human Factors
other aspects of motivation relevant to HF/E
issues that goal-setting theory does not address
(i.e., the “why” of goal selection; Sheldon, Ryan,
Deci, & Kasser, 2004). Similarly, cybernetic
approaches also describe how goals are achieved,
but they are less effective in identifying the fac-
tors that determine the “what” and “why” of
goal selection and pursuit (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
SD-theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,
2000) addresses these latter issues.
SD-Theory
SD-theory is a broad perspective that distin-
guishes intrinsic motivation as qualitatively dif-
ferent from forms of extrinsic motivation (Deci
& Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2008).
Note that researchers in this area refer to SD-
theory as “SDT.” Here it is referred to as SD-
theory to avoid confusion with the signal detec-
tion theory familiar to the HF/E and applied
experimental psychology community. As I have
previously noted (Szalma, 2009), the use of the
abbreviation SDT for two very different theories
underscores the historical separation between
motivation psychology and HF/E.
Intrinsic motivation is defined as motivation
in which the source is the “inherent satisfaction”
the individual derives from the behavior (Ryan
& Deci, 2008). The purpose or goal for the
behavior is in the experience of the activity
itself. In contrast, extrinsic motivation occurs
when the motivational source of behavior is an
external agent, that is, when the motivation for
an activity is to attain a goal separate from the
activity itself (e.g., a means to an end). The dis-
tinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-
tion has been well established empirically, and
several factors have been identified that influ-
ence whether behavior is intrinsically or extrin-
sically motivated (for a meta-analytic review,
see Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). The distinc-
tion between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
differentiates SD-theory from other dominant
models that propose a central self-regulatory
(Carver & Scheier, 1998) or goal-setting mecha-
nism (Locke & Latham, 1990) as the primary
drivers of a unitary motivation system.
Psychological needs. In SD-theory, three innate
psychological needs are considered the basis for
human motivation and the self-regulation of
behavior. These are the needs for autonomy (expe-
rience of choice, personal agency, volition, self-
determination; cf. Dember & Earl, 1957),
competence (effective interactions with the envi-
ronment; effectance motivation; White, 1959),
and relatedness (a supportive social connected-
ness with others, encompassing both healthy
attachment and intimacy; Ryan & Deci, 2001).
Note that psychological needs can serve both as
outcomes to be satisfied (i.e., experiential require-
ments) and as motives that energize and direct
behavior (Sheldon, 2011; Sheldon & Gunz, 2009;
Sheldon & Schuler, 2011). In the present context,
need satisfaction can thus serve both as an out-
come of technology use and as a motivation for
using it (e.g., Sheldon, Abad, & Hintsch, 2011).
Goals and the self. It is well established that
not all goals are equivalent in their value to a
given individual, and there is substantial evi-
dence that the relation of the goal to the self of
the person affects the experience of the activity.
For instance, when goals are well matched to
values that have been integrated into the per-
son’s self (i.e., when goals are self-concordant;
Sheldon & Kasser, 1995), individuals are more
engaged in the activity, they experience more
positive affect, and they exhibit greater resil-
ience when confronted with challenge (Ryan &
Deci, 2008; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). Goals that
are externally imposed on the person, with lim-
ited or no opportunity for self-determined
(autonomous) behavior, lead to greater vulnera-
bility to stress and fatigue and to a less satisfying
experience. This result has been observed in a
variety of contexts, including work, sport, and
education, and, more recently, has been extended
to technological environments as well (e.g., Prz-
bylski, Deci, Rigby, & Ryan, 2014; Ryan, Rigby,
& Przybylski, 2006; Sheldon et al., 2011).
Forms of extrinsic motivation: The impor-
tance of autonomy. In the overwhelming major-
ity of tasks involving human use of technology
(or human behavior in general), there is a limited
number of opportunities for intrinsically inter-
esting activity. Thus, intrinsic motivation may
not be a realistic goal for many applications, a
practical limitation that has been recognized by
self-determination theorists themselves (e.g.,
Gagné & Deci, 2005). However, there are four
forms of extrinsic motivation that vary in the
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1459

Figure 1. Different forms of motivation and their associated levels of autonomy, regulatory style, and
perceived locus of causality. The processes relevant to each regulatory style and the potential effect of each
type of motivation on human–technology interaction are also shown. Adapted from Ryan and Deci (2000).

degree to which the regulation of behavior is
autonomous and the goal is integrated with the
person’s values (see Figure 1). Which form of
extrinsic motivation occurs is determined by the
degree of internalization of the value of the
activity. Internalization refers to a process by
which a person accepts and adopts the value of a
goal and integrates it with their identity and
sense of self (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Internalization of a goal is associated
with the experience of greater autonomy and
competence in the goal-related activity (Deci &
Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Stone, Deci, &
Ryan, 2009).
The lowest level of autonomy is external reg-
ulation, in which there is no internalization of
the goal and behavior is directly regulated by the
response contingencies of an external agent
(e.g., tangible rewards or punishments). The sec-
ond level is introjected regulation, composed of
reward/punishment contingencies that the indi-
vidual himself or herself regulates (these may
include ego-related goals for self-esteem, such
as pride or avoidance of shame). In this case, the
internalization of the goal is minimal and limited
to the self-control of the contingency regulation.
Identified regulation is characterized by
behavior that is not linked to specific rewards or
punishments, but the person values the activity
as a means to attaining a separate but personally
important goal. However, the activity remains a
requirement imposed by external forces. The
most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation
is integrated regulation, in which the value of
the goal has been fully integrated with the per-
son’s values (the “self”; Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Ryan & Deci, 2000; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). It
is similar to intrinsic motivation in the degree of
autonomy in self-regulation, but it differs from
the latter in that it is behavior that results from
1460 December 2014 - Human Factors
the utility of the goal for other personal (but
highly valued and integrated) goals rather than
inherent interest in the activity itself.
Facilitating Intrinsic Motivation and
Autonomous Extrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation is facilitated by environ-
ments that support and provide opportunities for
autonomous behavior and that promote experi-
ences of competence and relatedness. Condi-
tions that interfere with or thwart satisfaction of
these needs undermine intrinsic motivation and
induce extrinsic motivation (or no motivation—
“amotivation”; Ryan & Deci, 2000) for the
activity. Thus, technology that supports need
satisfaction will facilitate intrinsic motivation
and autonomous extrinsic motivation (identified
or integrated regulation) for using the technol-
ogy. Although intrinsic motivation may not be
a realistic goal for practical application (but see
Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Hancock et al., 2005),
identified and integrated regulation are realis-
tic and possible. Attaining such self-regulation
requires provision of real autonomy to opera-
tors (perceived autonomy is necessary but not
sufficient). Facilitating competence (i.e., effec-
tive engagement with the environment; Deci &
Ryan, 1985) is also crucial, and to some extent
this is addressed by design principles that sup-
port usability.
Application of SD-Theory to Human–
Technology Interaction
There have been few applications of SD-
theory to issues pertaining to human–technology
interaction, but extant examples indicate that
technology affects user motivation as a func-
tion of the degree to which it supports need
satisfaction. The beneficial effects of facilitating
autonomy and competence have been observed
in the context of acceptance of new information
technology (Mitchell, Gagné, Beaudry, & Dyer,
2012), computer-based self-management of dia-
betes (Williams, Lynch, & Glasgow, 2007; Wil-
liams, McGregor, Zeldman, Freedman, & Deci,
2004), and video game play (Przbylinski, Rigby,
& Ryan, 2010; Ryan et al., 2006).
In the case of video game use, one of the vari-
ables that affect the experience of autonomy and
competence is the “intuitiveness” of the controls.
Ryan et al. (2006) reported that the ease of use of
an interface, in this case, a game control device,
directly and positively affected need satisfaction,
which increased intrinsic or integrated extrinsic
motivation for the activity. Both autonomy and
competence also predicted enjoyment, preference
for playing the game, and free choice of play (a
behavioral measure of intrinsic motivation; Deci
& Ryan, 1985). In addition, competence (but not
autonomy) was positively related to the experi-
ence of presence in the game. It should be noted
that Ryan et al. used a relatively older game (Mario
64), so these effects would likely be stronger in
games with more complex features as well as in
virtual reality contexts (e.g., Partala, 2011; Verha-
gen, Feldberg, van den Hooff, Meents, & Merikivi,
2012). There is initial evidence to support this
contention (Przbylski et al., 2014).
Technology may also play a role in satisfying
the need for relatedness. For instance, Sheldon
et al. (2011) examined the relationship of Face-
book use to perceptions of connectedness and dis-
connectedness with others (the latter indicating
that satisfaction of the need for relatedness is
blocked). They reported that higher levels of dis-
connectedness were associated with increased use
of Facebook and that connectedness perceptions
were an outcome of that use. Thus, psychological
need dissatisfaction can motivate behavior, and
need satisfaction may then be an outcome of that
activity depending on the motivational structure of
the environment (Sheldon, 2011).
There is evidence that autonomous motiva-
tion can be facilitated even for monotonous
tasks. Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, and Leone (1994)
asked participants to perform a monotonous vig-
ilance task in which they monitored a video dis-
play for the occasional appearance of a small dot
of light at randomly determined locations. They
evaluated the effects of instruction manipulation
on the degree and type of internalization task
goals, as measured by time spent engaged in the
task during a free activity period as well as by
ratings of perceived choice, perceived useful-
ness, and interest/enjoyment of the task. They
reported that autonomous motivation was
enhanced by providing participants with a mean-
ingful rationale for the activity, by acknowl-
edgement that the task was uninteresting, or by
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1461

Figure 2. (A) A theory of motivation and human–technology interaction. (B) An illustration of how the
characteristics of a task or interface affect need satisfaction and the resulting consequences for behavioral self-
regulation and human–technology interaction.

using instructions that were worded to minimize
the experience of externally controlled task
engagement (e.g., by emphasizing choice and
autonomous behavior versus using words such
as should or must). Hence, the way in which par-
ticipants were oriented toward the task affected
their experience of autonomous motivation.
Note that because the purpose for their study
was to test the effects of instructions on goal
internalization, Deci et al. (1994) did not report
performance data.
A Theory of Motivation and
Human–Technology Interaction
The general model and the regulatory out-
comes of psychological need support are shown
in Figures 2A and 2B, respectively. Note that per-
sonality traits are included in Figure 2A because
of their known effects on appraisal (Lazarus,
1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and on personal
outcomes related to task performance and cogni-
tive state (Szalma, 2008, 2009, 2012).
Motivational Structures and Cognitive
Evaluation
A motivational structure is a set of structures
in the environment that offers opportunities for
the experience of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness (i.e., for basic psychological needs
to be met). This concept is similar to the term
motivational affordance as used by Szalma
(2009) and Zhang (2008). An environmental
structure facilitates autonomy if it enables per-
sonal agency and self-regulation of activities
(freedom of choice, self-determination); an
environmental structure facilitates competence
if it enables effective use of technology or, in
some circumstances, learning and skill devel-
opment; an environmental structure facilitates
relatedness if it enables mutually supportive
social relationships and a positive, nurturing
relationship between the person and the orga-
nization, social group, or the technology itself.
Individuals use technology in order to achieve
both short- and long-term goals (“intention
1462 December 2014 - Human Factors
formation” in Figure 2A). The motivational
structures in the environment constrain human
use of the technology. Response to the technol-
ogy, in terms of performance, satisfaction, accep-
tance, likelihood of future use, and affective
response, will be influenced by cognitive apprais-
als of goal support (i.e., cognitive evaluations;
Deci & Ryan, 1985) and the subsequent experi-
ence of need satisfaction and the resulting out-
comes (see “personal outcomes” in Figure 2A).
The Role of Psychological Needs in
Human–Technology Interaction
Essentially, human response to technology
depends not only on goal outcomes (individuals
adapt relatively well to poor design via compen-
satory mechanisms; Hancock & Warm, 1989;
Hockey, 1997, 2003) but also on the experience
of the interaction itself (i.e., the “experience of
need satisfaction”; see Figure 2B). For instance,
using an ATM or a word-processing program
may result in the same task outcome for two peo-
ple (completing a financial transaction; writing
a document), but if one person uses a clumsy,
poorly designed interface, the experience of
the interaction (and the motivation for future
use of the technology) will likely be external
or introjected regulation. If the interaction is
pleasant for the second individual because the
technology supported autonomous engagement
in the activity, his or her experience would
likely be associated with identified, integrated,
or intrinsic regulation (depending on the degree
to which task goals are internalized or the activ-
ity itself is interesting). The crucial difference in
the motivational experience of these individuals
results not from the task goal per se but from
how the appraised progress toward goal attain-
ment supports the experience of satisfaction of
the three basic psychological needs.
The experience of pleasure or displeasure elic-
ited by the attributes of the object or task (Jordan,
2000) are symptoms of the facilitation (pleasure)
or thwarting (displeasure) of psychological need
satisfaction. If the technology or task structure
facilitates experience of autonomy and compe-
tence, the interaction will be positive and the moti-
vation for using it will be more autonomous and
less controlled. If the task or interface structure is
designed poorly, competency (not only skill but,
more generally, effective interaction) and auton-
omy can be undermined. Of course, there can also
be too little structure—that is, providing multiple
options can induce indecision or poor choices
(Schwarz, 2004) because the information-process-
ing requirements exceed capacity (Dember &
Earl, 1957). Conversely, overly rigid task struc-
tures can reduce autonomous motivation and, in
some circumstances (e.g., automation), increase
the risk of loss of competence and relatedness.
Eudaimonic Design: Principles
and Procedures
Eudaimonic approaches to motivation
involve viewing well-being as a high level of
psychological functioning and self-realization
of nonmaterial goals (in particular, goals that,
when attained, satisfy the three basic needs)
rather than attaining the purely hedonic goals
of pleasure or pain avoidance (see Ryan &
Deci, 2001, for a more detailed treatment of
this issue). Designing technology to enhance
well-being in terms of effective psychological
functioning may thus be termed eudaimonic
design as a contrast to hedonomic design (for
a description of the latter, see Hancock et al.,
2005; Helander & Tham, 2003). That is, in
addition to satisfying goals for short-term plea-
sure (hedonomics), principles for motivational
design can also facilitate long-term well-being
that is characterized by effective psychologi-
cal functioning, or eudaimonia (Ryan & Deci,
2001). It is my contention that designing only
for pleasure or purely hedonic goals is not nec-
essarily designing for well-being or eudaimonic
goals. For instance, engaging in video game
play several hours per day may provide oppor-
tunities for short-term pleasure but it also may
induce poor long-term psychological or physi-
cal health (e.g., Park, 2007; Smyth, 2007).
Principles for Motivational Design
The principles listed in Table 1 describe the
general issues to be addressed in designing a
task or an interface to support the experience of
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Figure
3 illustrates how the previously described moti-
vation concepts can be incorporated into the
general design process of HF/E. Note that when
possible, these principles should be applied at
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1463

Table 1: Principles of Eudaimonic Design

1. Functional design: In trade-offs among design principles, meeting functional criteria is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for motivational usability (i.e., an interface will have low motivational
usability if it has poor function; cf. Hancock, Pepe, & Murphy, 2005). This includes ensuring that task
demands closely match the skill level of the user and that there is a high level of perceived ease of
use (Venkatesh, 2000).
2. Eudaimonic design: Interfaces that are high in motivational usability will be those that, through
their use, satisfy the individual’s needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
  a. Autonomy: Autonomy is supported by an interface or task that provides the user with as much
choice as is safe and practical in setting immediate and long-term goals and in how he or she
performs the task.
  b. Competence: Competence is supported by an interface that is intuitive and by task demands
that match the skill of the user and provide opportunities for skill improvement.
  c. Relatedness: Relatedness is supported by sociotechnical environments that facilitate supportive
interaction with other persons and with the technology, that avoid experiences of alienation or
isolation of the user from others or from the task, and that engender feelings and attitudes that
the technology serves the person, not vice versa.
3. Self-concordant goals: The self-concepts and the values (attitudes, beliefs) of the operator should
be evaluated as part of the person analysis (Szalma, 2009) so that the technological environment
can be shaped to these values to support the achievement of self-concordant goals and to
maximize internalized and integrated regulation of task-related behaviors.
4. Need satisfaction: Immediate need satisfaction, and the benefits that derive from it, should be
considered an experiential outcome of the interaction with the technology; need dissatisfaction
may motivate use of the technology. User experience will be enhanced when the task or interface
conforms to the above principles.
5. Organizational context: For complex operational environments, an interface may support short-
term need satisfaction, but sustained, long-term need satisfaction will occur only if the factors that
support them are also incorporated into the broader sociotechnical system.

multiple levels, ranging from the sociotechni-
cal system to the design of display and control
elements (for a general hierarchical perspective
on SD-theory, see Vallerand, 1997). Table 2
lists factors that previous SD-theory research
has identified as facilitating or thwarting need
satisfaction and that may extend to human–
technology interaction. Table 3 provides a list
of example questions to consider in designing
technology or a task to support intrinsic or
autonomous extrinsic motivation.
In general, the major goal for motivational
design should be to reduce the degree to which
use of the interface fails to support (or interferes
with) need satisfaction and for the technology to
instead facilitate need satisfaction. In short, the
tool to be used, whether an interface or a training
procedure, should be convivial (Hancock, 2009;
Illich, 1973). It is possible that in some circum-
stances, technology structured according to the
principles of SD-theory may serve as an effec-
tive means of satisfying the basic psychological
needs in circumstances in which satisfaction of
the latter was previously blocked, thereby sup-
porting the general goal of creating technology
to improve well-being. That is, use of technol-
ogy may be motivated by need dissatisfaction,
and its use may facilitate satisfaction. Indeed,
there is initial evidence for this contention (Shel-
don et al., 2011).
However, it is unlikely that all technological
environments will facilitate integrated or intrin-
sic regulation. In these circumstances, creating
technology to support identified regulation
should be the standard pursued, if not ubiqui-
tously attained. Supporting autonomous motiva-
tion to the extent possible can be achieved by
identifying the goals of the user in the task con-
text, both the content (the “what”) and the rea-
son for selecting the goals (the “why”). If it is
1464 December 2014 - Human Factors
Figure 3. General guidelines for incorporating motivation into technology design (adapted from Szalma,
2009). PLOC = perceived locus of causality.
discovered that components of the task or tech-
nology promote external or introjected regula-
tion (or, in the extreme, amotivation with respect
to the task; see Figure 1), the relationship
between the task or technology and the person’s
goals should be reevaluated. Specifically, the
task, interface, training procedures, and/or selec-
tion methods should be redesigned to bring task
or system goals into concordance (cf. Sheldon &
Elliot, 1999) with the person’s goals (in cases of
interface/task design) or the person’s goals into
concordance with task goals (in cases of train-
ing/selection). With respect to the latter, when
such concordance is achieved via training, it
should include procedures to facilitate internal-
ization of task or broader system goals by the
person (see Table 2).
General Procedural Guidelines for
Motivational Design
Many of the ideas for motivational design
presented here are not entirely new to HF/E,
and it is very likely that many practitioners
consider motivation in their designs. In previ-
ous treatments, the focus was on emotion and
experiences of pleasure in the interaction with a
device. Techniques for eliciting a user’s values
or goals, such as those described by Olphert
and Damodaran (2004), tend to apply method-
ologies established in business and engineering,
such as participatory design and focus groups.
These approaches have utility, but they can be
augmented by methods used in psychology to
identify how the relation of the person to task
goals and to the context in which they are pur-
sued affect the person’s motivational state. We
thus do not need to invent an entirely new set of
procedures or methods. We need only incorpo-
rate motivational requirements and motivational
measures into current practice.
The designer should first seek to discover not
only what the person wishes to achieve, but also
why (Hancock, 2009). Answers to both of these
questions provide the information necessary to
identify a how that best fits the person’s needs,
relative to both the technology use itself and to
his or her psychological needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. In other words,
this approach requires extending our consider-
ation of system requirements to include struc-
tures that support the experience of autonomy
and competence in technology use that, at least,
does not undermine relatedness. It means con-
sidering not only utilitarian or hedonic goals but
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1465

Table 2: Factors That Affect the Experience of Need Satisfaction and Internalization of Task Goals

Thwarting Need Promoting

Facilitating Need Satisfaction Satisfaction Internalization

•  Choice in setting goals and selecting paths •  Lack of choice •  Meaningful rationale
to achieve them for task
•  Information demands are intrinsically
interesting or, if extrinsic, are organized to
support autonomous decision making
•  Informational feedback is experienced •  Controlling feedback; •  Emphasis on choice rather
as autonomous (self-determined) and an external perceived than on control
associated with an internal perceived locus of locus of causality
causality rather than as externally controlled
•  Accountability for performance outcomes •  Tangible rewards •  Participation in goal
is experienced as autonomous rather than experienced as selection and planning
controlled (e.g., surveillance may undermine controlling
self-determined motivation)
•  Skill development opportunities •  Performance- •  Participatory ergonomics
contingent rewards
•  Learning goals •  Performance goals •  Acknowledgement that
task may be uninteresting
•  Acknowledging the person’s inner •  Skill atrophy  
experiences related to the activity
•  Supportive interpersonal relationships •  Social pressure  
•  Experience of connectedness with the •  Time pressure  
technology and the task •  Threat
•  Development and maintenance of a level of •  Surveillance
trust in the technology that corresponds to •  Evaluation
its functional usability •  Deadlines
  •  Isolation, alienation  
  •  High information  
retrieval costs
Note. These are not intended as exhaustive lists. Rather, they represent factors identified by self-determination
theory research that have been found to affect need satisfaction or goal internalization in a variety of contexts but
applied here to human–technology interaction.

also goals related to integrated and identified
regulation.
Figure 3 illustrates sequential steps for includ-
ing motivation in the design process. Incorporat-
ing motivational design principles into HF/E
requires analysis of both the task and the person.
HF/E already possesses the tools to incorporate
motivation into design, in a manner analogous to
that for inclusion of individual differences into
design principles (Szalma, 2009). Part of the pro-
cess of a task analysis involves identifying the
perceptual and cognitive demands (more broadly,
the “characteristics”) of the system or task. The
person analysis should include stable cognitive
and affective traits (Szalma, 2009) but also
immediate and long-term goals and the degree to
which the goals are internalized or integrated
with the self (i.e., self-concordant). Incorporation
of motivational structures into the process simply
requires, in addition to analyses of task charac-
teristics and the population of users, that one also
includes in the task analysis the motivational
structure of the context and that the user analysis
includes evaluation of the degree of goal inter-
nalization and human–task goal concordance.
The task can then be structured in a manner that
1466 December 2014 - Human Factors

Table 3: Example Questions to Consider When Designing Technology to Support Identified,

Integrated, or Intrinsic Motivation

Need Example Questions

Autonomy •  Do users feel that they are in control of the activity or that the technology
controls them?
•  Do users experience choice in activities and in goal selection and pursuit, without
information overload?
•  Are the goals for the technology or the task internalized and integrated with the
self of the user?
•  Are short-term hedonistic goals supportive of long-term psychological well-being
(eudaimonic goals)?
Competence •  Is the interface easy to use?
•  Does the interface support skill development and maintenance?
•  Does the technology support prevention of skill atrophy?
•  Does the technology facilitate active engagement of the user in personally
relevant and “optimally” challenging activities?
Relatedness •  Do individuals feel alienated when they use the technology, as if they are a “cog”
in the system, or do they feel meaningfully related to their work, their colleagues,
or their supervisors?
•  Does interaction with the system increase feelings of connectedness, or does it
increase feelings of aloneness or alienation?
•  Do users tend to abandon responsibility for the task or technology?
•  Does the interface support secure or insecure attachment with others?
•  Does the interface support high-quality relationships (intimacy) or low-quality
relationships (aloneness)?
•  Does the technology help support only material goals, or does it also support
nonmaterial goals?

maximizes to the extent practicable the number
of self-concordant task goals as well as activity
that is experienced as autonomous and compe-
tence supporting.
A first step is to identify task goals and how
their attainment is constrained by context, includ-
ing the interface or task itself and the goals of the
users (Steps 1 and 2 in Figure 3). Then identify
for each task element how that element supports
(or does not support) identified or integrated
regulation (Steps 2, 3, and 4 in Figure 3). This
process may be as simple as increasing the
salience of cues relating the task elements to a
broader, highly valued goal or, in some settings,
introducing variability into the work that allevi-
ates the boredom and low-autonomy characteris-
tic of many work environments or, in other set-
tings, redesigning the interface to be inherently
interesting to the person. Broad interest invento-
ries may not be sufficient in some cases, if the
task element is in the time frame of seconds (i.e.,
immediate activity). One may need to evaluate
both general and context-independent interests as
well as the person’s immediate context-dependent
interests during task performance.
Satisfaction of the three basic needs may
serve as criteria for evaluation of task elements.
If a task is discovered to be monotonous, then
interventions may include adjustment of opera-
tor autonomy based on task load, activities that
facilitate competence building in the domain,
and self-concordant activities to engage the
operator during periods of low task load (based
on goal internalizations identified in Step 4 of
Figure 3). Note that the objective should not
necessarily be to induce maximum autonomous
motivation at all times, as such an outcome is
unrealistic in many circumstances. Rather, the
objective should be that even when the task is
not engaging (“motivating”) the person may be
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1467
engaged because of the broader, contextualized
meaning the task has for his or her self-concor-
dant goals. This goal is more than achieving
“buy-in” or providing operators with “owner-
ship” over their activities. The facilitation of
these needs, and the subsequent emergence of
internalized or integrated motivation, must be
manifested in the design of the task or techno-
logical environment itself.
For each component of a task/interface, the
questions to be addressed include the following:
(a) How do the goals for this activity relate to the
user’s goals? (b) How does the activity affect the
user’s experience of autonomy and competence?
(c) Does the activity facilitate connectedness or
does it alienate the person from his or her broad
internalized and integrated (i.e., highly valued)
goals? (d) Do the person’s integrated goals con-
flict with overall (external) task goals? If so,
then one of these should be changed: the task
goal whenever possible. If task goals are brought
in line with the person’s integrated goals, then
(e) how does the combination of task elements
within an activity affect the person’s experience
of competence and autonomy? Does the person
experience the task as internalized or integrated
regulation, that is, meaningfully related to his or
her self-concordant goals?
Assessment of motivation. A challenge for
any application of motivation theory to HF/E is
in the assessment of user motivation. Measures
of specific (contextually based) and general
(personality-based) need satisfaction are neces-
sary. Fortunately, well-validated measures exist
and are easily available (e.g., http://www.selfde-
terminationtheory.org/questionnaires). There are
also behavioral methods for assessing autonomy
(e.g., the “free choice” method; see Deci &
Ryan, 1985). Assessment of need satisfaction
using these measures should therefore be a rou-
tine part of interface/task analysis (Steps 2
through 4 in Figure 3) as well as in follow-up
assessments after implementation (Step 6 in
Figure 3).
At Step 6, one can also measure derivative
outcomes of motivation that are relevant for
human–technology interaction, such as stress,
workload, and fatigue, as well as the TAM con-
structs of perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness (for measures of the latter, see Davis
et al., 1992; Venkatesh, 2000). These measures
should be used in tandem with measures of
motivation rather than as proxies for assessing
motivation.
The futility of unethical application. Design-
ing technology, tasks, or training procedures to
induce a person to internalize system goals can
result in improved performance and user well-
being, but motivational principles also have the
potential for abuse by managers or designers (cf.
Parasuraman & Riley, 1997). For instance,
designers or managers may attempt to induce
individuals to internalize goals by using these
principles to create persuasive propaganda or
manipulative interventions. However, practitio-
ners seeking to abuse the principles of motiva-
tional design are forewarned that it is not only
unethical to do so, but it will also be ineffective.
The only way to achieve integrated or identified
regulation is to actually satisfy the three basic
psychological needs. That is, the technological
context must support actual autonomous behav-
ior, the development and maintenance of actual
competence, and actual, genuine relatedness.
Attempts at (external) manipulation will lead, at
best, to introjected regulation and the resultant
motivational costs to usability and performance.
Summary and Conclusions
The main goals for this paper were (a) to
describe a general theoretical model of how
motivation influences human–technology interac-
tion, based on SD-theory, and (b) to incorporate
this theory into general principles and guidelines
for motivational design. There has been a very
limited number of empirical studies investigat-
ing the influence of motivational characteristics
of technology on human performance and well-
being, and no published studies have explic-
itly integrated SD-theory into research on HF/E
principles or in their application to design. This
work represents a crucial next step if we are to
create technology to enhance human well-being.
However, one cannot measure or evaluate some-
thing unless one is aware of its importance. The
motivational design principles and general pro-
cedural guidelines described here are therefore
intended to alert designers to concerns, such as
autonomy, so that they will be more likely to
include assessment of them in their design pro-
1468 December 2014 - Human Factors
cesses. These principles are meant to augment the
established principles of human factors design.
To the extent that the principles and procedural
guidelines described here are already used in
“real-world” practice, this paper represents a
theory-based specification of what has to date
been accomplished informally but not articulated
in the HF/E literature. If this is the case, it is hoped
that these principles will serve to close a gap
between HF/E theory and actual practice.
Technology can be an effective tool for
improving well-being by facilitating the satis-
faction of basic human needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. Alternatively, it
may also be designed (implicitly or explicitly) to
thwart the experience of need satisfaction and
thus prevent well-being. HF/E, as a discipline,
will contribute to one of these outcomes. The
principles and guidelines described in this paper
are intended to facilitate the former in order to
prevent the latter.
Acknowledgment
This paper is dedicated to the memory of William
N. Dember, PhD. Professor Dember introduced me
to motivation research, including self-determination
theory. He nurtured my interest in motivation and
always encouraged me to pursue it further. I will
be forever grateful for his insights, guidance, and
inspiration.
Key Points
•• Motivation theory and research are relevant to
human–technology interaction, but they have
been mostly neglected in human factors and ergo-
nomics research and practice.
•• Self-determination theory describes motivational
structures and processes that can be adapted for
inclusion into principles and guidelines for the
design of technology.
•• A theoretical model of motivation and human–
technology interaction was described, and general
principles and guidelines for motivational (eudai-
monic) design were proposed.
•• Autonomous motivation for technology use will
occur if the technology facilitates satisfaction of
the basic psychological needs for autonomy, com-
petence, and relatedness.
•• Technology that enables autonomous behavior,
effective (competent) engagement with the task,
and a sense of connectedness (relatedness) with oth-
ers via the technology will increase the likelihood
of identified or integrated extrinsic motivation or, in
some circumstances, intrinsic motivation.
•• A crucial determinant of the motivational expe-
rience with technology does not derive from the
task goal per se but from whether the appraised
progress toward goal attainment supports the
experience of satisfaction of the three basic psy-
chological needs.
•• Problems of motivation in human–technology
interaction can be addressed by including an eval-
uation of motivational characteristics of the task,
the interface, the context, and the relationships of
these to user motivation as part of task and user
analyses.
References
Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1978). Introduction to motivation
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York, NY: Freeman.
Broadbent, D. A. (1971). Decision and stress. London, UK: Aca-
demic Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of
behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Chiou, E., Venkatraman, V., Larson, K., Li, Y., Gibson, M., & Lee,
J. D. (2014). Contextual design of a motivated medication
management device. Ergonomics in Design, 22(1), 8–15.
Cooke, N., Cummings, M., Hancock, P., Marras, W., & Warm, J.
(2010). Bored beyond belief: How automation is boring us to
distraction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergo-
nomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (p. 758). Santa Monica,
CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal
experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Cummings, M. L., Mastracchio, C., Thornburg, K. M., & Mkrt-
chyan, A. (2013). Boredom and distraction in multiple
unmanned vehicle supervisory control. Interacting With Com-
puters, 25, 34–47.
Davies, D. R., Shackleton, V. J., & Parasuraman, R. (1983).
Monotony and boredom. In R. Hockey (Ed.), Stress and fatigue
in human performance (pp. 1–32). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,
13, 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User accep-
tance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical
models. Management Science, 35, 982–1002.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111–1132.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994).
Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory per-
spective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic
review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic
rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125,
627–668.
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1469
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Dember, W. N., & Earl, R. W. (1957). Analysis of exploratory,
manipulatory, and curiosity behaviors. Psychological Review,
64, 91–96.
Eason, K. D. (1984). Towards the experimental study of usability.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 3, 133–143.
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept.
Human Relations, 46, 395–417.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and
work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
331–362.
Ghazizadeh, M., Lee, J. D., & Boyle, L. N. (2012). Extending the
technology acceptance model to assess automation. Cognitive
Technology and Work, 14, 39–49.
Hancock, P. A. (2009). Mind, machine, and morality: Toward a
philosophy of human–technology symbiosis. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Hancock, P. A. (2013). In search of vigilance: The problem of iat-
rogenically created psychological phenomena. American Psy-
chologist, 68, 97–109.
Hancock, P. A., Pepe, A. A., & Murphy, L. L. (2005). Hedonomics:
The power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergonom-
ics in Design, 13(1), 8–14.
Hancock, P. A., & Szalma, J. L. (2008). Stress and performance. In
P. A. Hancock & J. L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under stress
(pp. 1–18). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Hancock, P. A., & Warm, J. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress
and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31, 519–537.
Helander, M. G., & Tham, M.P. (2003). Hedonomics: Affective
human factors design. Ergonomics, 46, 1269-1272.
Hockey, G. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of
human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-
energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73–93.
Hockey, G. R. J. (2003). Operator functional state as a framework
for the assessment of performance. In A. W. K. Gaillard, G.
R. J. Hockey, & O. Burov (Eds.), Operator functional state:
The assessment and prediction of human performance degra-
dation in complex tasks (pp. 8–23). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
IOS Press.
Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
International Organization for Standardization. (1998). ISO 9241-
11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display
terminals (VDTs). Part 11: Guidance on usability. Retrieved
from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_
detail.htm?csnumber=16883
Jordan, P. W. (1998). Human factors for pleasure in product use.
Applied Ergonomics, 29, 25–33.
Jordan, P. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. Boca Raton,
FL: Taylor & Francis.
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Work motivation:
Forging new perspectives and directions in the post-millen-
nium. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work
motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 601–632). New York,
NY: Taylor & Francis.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology
acceptance model. Information & Management, 43, 740–755.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and
directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist,
12, 290–300.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and cop-
ing. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Leventhal, L., & Barnes, J. (2008). Usability engineering: Process,
products, and examples. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and
task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful
theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psycholo-
gist, 57, 705–717.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal set-
ting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15,
265–268.
Luczak, H., Kabel, T., & Licht, T. (2012). Task design and motiva-
tion. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (4th
ed., pp. 397–440). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychologi-
cal Review, 50, 370–396.
Matthews, G., Davies, D. R., Westerman, S. J., & Stammers, R. B.
(2000). Human performance: Cognition, stress, and individual
differences. London, UK: Psychology Press.
McDonagh, D., Hekkert, P., van Erp, J., & Gyi, D. (Eds.). (2004).
Design and emotion: The experience of everyday things. Boca
Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
McLaughlin, A., Gandy, M., Allaire, J., & Whitlock, L. (2012).
Putting fun into video games for older adults. Ergonomics in
Design, 20(2), 13–22.
Mitchell, J. I., Gagné, M., Beaudry, A., & Dyer, L. (2012). The role
of perceived organizational support, distributive justice and
motivation in reactions to new information technology. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 28, 729–738.
Montgomery, H., Sharafi, P., & Hedman, L. R. (2004). Engaging
in activities involving information technology: Dimensions,
modes, and flow. Human Factors, 46, 334–348.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston, MA: Academic
Press.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Olphert, W., & Damodaran, L. (2004). Getting what you want, or
wanting what you get? Beyond user centered design. In D.
McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. van Erp, & D. Gyi (Eds.), Design
and emotion: The experience of everyday things (pp. 126–130).
Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Pace, S. (2004). A grounded theory of the flow experiences of web
users. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 60,
327–363.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation:
Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
Park, H. J. (2007). Longitudinal relationships between physi-
cal activity, sedentary behaviors, and obesity in children and
adolescents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Partala, T. (2011). Psychological needs and virtual worlds: Case
Second Life. International Journal of Human–Computer Stud-
ies, 69, 787–800.
Petri, H., & Govern, J. (2013). Motivation: Theory, research, and
application (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning.
Pilke, E. M. (2004). Flow experiences in information technology
use. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 61,
347–357.
Proctor, R. W., & Van Zandt, T. (2008). Human factors in simple
and complex systems (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
1470 December 2014 - Human Factors
Przybylski, A. K., Deci, E. L., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014).
Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggres-
sive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 106, 441–457.
Przbylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motiva-
tional model of video game engagement. Review of General
Psychology, 14, 154–166.
Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding motivation and emotion (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and
the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 66–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human poten-
tials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-
being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and
the role of basic psychological needs in personality and the
organization of behavior. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 654–678). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. K. (2006). The moti-
vational pull of video games: A self-determination theory
approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 347–364.
Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1993). Human factors in engi-
neering and design (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (2000). Interest and self-regulation:
The relation between having to and wanting to. In C. Sansone
& J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-
tion: The search for optimal motivation and performance
(pp. 341–372). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sansone, C. T., Thoman, D. B., & Smith, J. L. (2010). Interest
and self-regulation: Understanding individual variability in
choices, efforts, and persistence over time. In R. H. Hoyle
(Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 192–
217). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Scerbo, M. W. (1998). What’s so boring about vigilance? In R. R.
Hoffman, M. F. Sherrick, & J. S. Warm (Eds.), View psychol-
ogy as a whole: The integrative science of William N. Dem-
ber (pp. 145–166). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the tech-
nology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and
moderation effects. Information & Management, 44, 90–103.
Schwarz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Shackel, B. (1986). Ergonomics in design for usability. In M. D.
Harrison & A. F. Monk (Eds.), People and computers: Design
for usability. Proceedings of the HCI ’86 Conference on People
and Computers II 1986 (pp. 44–64). Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Integrating behavioral-motive and
experiential-requirement perspectives on psychological needs:
A two process model. Psychological Review, 118, 552–569.
Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process
view of Facebook use and relatedness need-satisfaction: Dis-
connection drives use, and connection rewards it. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 766–775.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfac-
tion, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.
Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic
motives, not just experiential requirements. Journal of Person-
ality, 77, 1467–1492.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence:
Two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 531–543.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004).
The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-
being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475–486.
Sheldon, K. M., & Schuler, J. (2011). Wanting, having, and needing:
Integrating motive disposition theory and self-determination theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1106–1123.
Smith, R. P. (1981). Boredom: A review. Human Factors, 23,
329–340.
Smyth, J. M. (2007). Beyond self-selection in video game play: An
experimental examination of the consequences of massively
multiplayer online role-playing game play. CyberPsychology
& Behavior, 10, 717–721.
Stone, D. N., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Beyond talk:
Creating autonomous motivation through self-determination
theory. Journal of General Management, 34, 75–91.
Szalma, J. L. (2008). Individual differences in stress reaction. In
P. A. Hancock & J. L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under stress
(pp. 323–357). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Szalma, J. L. (2009). Individual differences in human–technology
interaction: Incorporating variation in human characteristics
into human factors and ergonomics research and design. Theo-
retical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10, 381–397.
Szalma, J. L. (2012). Individual differences in stress, fatigue, and
performance. In G. Matthews, P. A. Desmond, C. Neubauer, &
P. A. Hancock (Eds.), The handbook of operator fatigue (pp.
75–90). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Szalma, J. L., Hancock, G. M., & Hancock, P. A. (2012). Task
loading and stress in human–computer interaction: Theoreti-
cal frameworks and mitigation strategies. In J. A. Jacko (Ed.),
The human–computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals,
evolving technologies, and emerging applications (3rd ed.,
pp. 55–75). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Thompson, J. (2004). More than meets the eye: Exploring oppor-
tunities for new products, which may aid us emotionally as
well as physically. In D. McDonagh, P. Hekkert, J. van Erp, &
D. Gyi (Eds.), Design and emotion: The experience of every-
day things (pp. 332–336). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrat-
ing control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology
acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365.
Verhagen, T., Feldberg, F., van den Hooff, B., Meents, S., &
Merikivi, J. (2012). Understanding users’ motivations to
engage in virtual worlds: A multipurpose method and empirical
testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 484–495.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of
competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.
Wickens, C. D., Lee, J., Liu, Y. D., & Gordon-Becker, S. (2003).
Introduction to human factors engineering (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Williams, G. C., Lynch, M., & Glasgow, R. E. (2007). Computer-
assisted intervention improves patient-centered diabetes care by
increasing autonomy support. Health Psychology, 26, 728–734.
Williams, G. C., McGregor, H. A., Zeldman, A., Freedman, Z.
R., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Testing a self-determination theory
Application of Motivation Theory to HF/E 1471

process model for promoting glycemic control through diabe-
tes self-management. Health Psychology, 23, 58–66.
Zhang, P. (2008). Motivational affordances: Reasons for ICT
design and use. Communications of the ACM, 51, 145–147.
of Cincinnati in 1999. He is an associate professor in
the Psychology Department at the University of Central
Florida.

James L. Szalma received his PhD in applied experi- Date received: March 20, 2014
mental/human factors psychology from the University Date accepted: August 29, 2014